http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/balance.htm

Quote from: James J SkachI believe they call 'em "untiered" encounters in Living Greyhawk - that is, encounters that aren't scaled to be "fair" to the level of characters, or APL, playing the mod.

And if you are stupid and run headlong into one of those - you might just end up toast. So you do have to step lightly sometimes, the trick of course being able to recognize when those times come up.

Correct. Not a "narrative encounter"- but an untiered encounter. The guy who wrote that particular one I happen to know has no idea what the forge is, and pretty much only plays D&D.

By the way Koltar- there's no right or wrong answer on that one, but I haven't run across anyone yet who sunk the ship.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWell, yeah. But encounter design was always sort of a black art under 3+. And it was worse under earlier editions...

(Don't get me wrong-- I love encounter design under 3.0. It's something I really work hard at. )

 If it's an accurate formula for setting the right number of foes for an encounter, I'm all on board with that.

I think it's a good thing to have a decent formula for setting the right number of foes for a balanced encounter, if only because when I throw an unbalanced encounter at the PCs I want to do so because I decided to, not because I did so by accident. Hopefully these systems will give me the ability to, say, set up an obviously infeasible fight for the PCs to avoid, or a notably weak point in the goblin camp's guard that the PCs could quickly punch through. So long as a DM I'm not REQUIRED to always keep the encounters balanced, I'm cool.

Quote from: Abyssal MawCorrect. Not a "narrative encounter"- but an untiered encounter. The guy who wrote that particular one I happen to know has no idea what the forge is, and pretty much only plays D&D.

By the way Koltar- there's no right or wrong answer on that one, but I haven't run across anyone yet who sunk the ship.

Thing is, you don't have to play a game "optimised for narrative gaming" to have encounters that encourage character self-examination, tough moral dilemmas, and interesting roleplaying. I have been doing that for decades with any game system, from OD&D and Traveller to whatever I'm playing now - and I don't have to sacrifice the whup-ass and adventure to get it. It's really just a matter of good GMing and interesting player characters.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThing is, you don't have to play a game "optimised for narrative gaming" to have encounters that encourage character self-examination, tough moral dilemmas, and interesting roleplaying. I have been doing that for decades with any game system, from OD&D and Traveller to whatever I'm playing now - and I don't have to sacrifice the whup-ass and adventure to get it. It's really just a matter of good GMing and interesting player characters.

Nobody on the internet disagrees with you, Clash.

Quote from: CalithenaNobody on the internet disagrees with you, Clash.

Apologies for wasting your time, then, citizen!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThing is, you don't have to play a game "optimised for narrative gaming" to have encounters that encourage character self-examination, tough moral dilemmas, and interesting roleplaying. I have been doing that for decades with any game system, from OD&D and Traveller to whatever I'm playing now - and I don't have to sacrifice the whup-ass and adventure to get it. It's really just a matter of good GMing and interesting player characters.

-clash

100% agreement.

Quote from: HaffrungBah! Who wants all their encounters meticulously calibrated to be balanced and 'fair' (whatever the fuck that means).

These people.

Quote from: KenHRThese people.

humbug to them!  i ain't even pokin' my snoot in there.

variety in encounter difficulty is but one of the many spices of gaming!

Quote from: beeberhumbug to them!  i ain't even pokin' my snoot in there.

variety in encounter difficulty is but one of the many spices of gaming!

'ey, I'm right there with ya, bro.

It's an entertaining discussion, though.

Quote from: James J SkachI believe they call 'em "untiered" encounters in Living Greyhawk - that is, encounters that aren't scaled to be "fair" to the level of characters, or APL, playing the mod.

And if you are stupid and run headlong into one of those - you might just end up toast. So you do have to step lightly sometimes, the trick of course being able to recognize when those times come up.

Indeed. I think it's a laudable design aim to put in place mechanisms that allow the GM to accurately balance encounters. Once the foundation is in place then you're free to create encounters that exceed character limitations, up to and including the instant TPK.

I'd far rather have a system that I can coveniently ignore than nothing at all. Running through tactical mock ups to find out if Outrageous Beastie #4 is going to slaughter half the party is not my idea of fun. I'd rather have the game do that for me.

Quote from: KenHR'ey, I'm right there with ya, bro.

It's an entertaining discussion, though.

That kind of discussion gets to me. As a GM and as a player. The fairness thing, wtf.

I insist on the right of my PC to be treated neither fairly nor unfairly, because a) life ain't either fair or unfair so why should Bodaks be?; b) no such thing as an "encounter", there is only ever a SITUATION, out of which "encounters" emerge contingently, shaped by way too many factors for the GM to compute; for which reason c) the balancedness of an encounter is an improbably felicitous outcome, it's far more likely the deck will be stacked against one party or the other.

In short:

Fairness is a non-issue (a sacred cow). Encounter is a meaningless abstraction. Balance is a happy coincidence.

Thank you for your time. You may now lock this thread.

I'm going to make a claim now with nothing to back it up.

Balance is actually hurting D&D. How is it hurting D&D? Warthur and Drew both provide logical reasons for having one versus not: it's a tool, one that you can ignore.  I don't disagree.

The problem is the players have it too - and they don't want it ignored.  In fact, it builds the expectation that it won't be ignored.  So then, when they blindly stumble into a cave and bust through the iron-bound open door at the end of the "front-porch," without listening, without searching around, they feel safe in doing so because whatever's onthe other side should be EL appropriate, right?  I mean, what else are all those rules in the DMG for?

It's born of a generation that thinks life should be fair, and raised a generation of gamers who will complain if it isn't. I think in ten or twenty years it will be seen as a design fad that killed the imagination inherent in the uknown.  People will question it's impact much like people now question if the "unified mechanic" approach is really good for RPG's.

OK, it's not that bold and I think now, looking at it, Cali said something similar in another thread.  My apologies.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm going to make a claim now with nothing to back it up.

Balance is actually hurting D&D. How is it hurting D&D? Warthur and Drew both provide logical reasons for having one versus not: it's a tool, one that you can ignore.  I don't disagree.

The problem is the players have it too - and they don't want it ignored.  In fact, it builds the expectation that it won't be ignored.  So then, when they blindly stumble into a cave and bust through the iron-bound open door at the end of the "front-porch," without listening, without searching around, they feel safe in doing so because whatever's onthe other side should be EL appropriate, right?  I mean, what else are all those rules in the DMG for?

It's born of a generation that thinks life should be fair, and raised a generation of gamers who will complain if it isn't. I think in ten or twenty years it will be seen as a design fad that killed the imagination inherent in the uknown.  People will question it's impact much like people now question if the "unified mechanic" approach is really good for RPG's.

OK, it's not that bold and I think now, looking at it, Cali said something similar in another thread.  My apologies.

That's a reasonable position to take, and there certainly seems to be more focus on player entitlement these days, but I can't help but think that if the DM makes clear from the outset that not all encounters will be beatable then there really shouldn't be a problem. If players can't accept that then I'd rather not play with them.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm going to make a claim now with nothing to back it up.

Brilliant analysis, Holmes! I say! I MUST write that down!

-Watson